4 ms·
i.e. at best, it provides no new information at the expense of learning an entirely new framework.
by highd 10y ago
i.e. at best, it provides no new information at the expense of learning an entirely new framework.
- lisivka 10y agoIMHO, if we will know better the physics of quantum and relativistic effects, we will be able to model them at macro level, so it will be much easier to understand and study these effects. Mathematics will not change, calculation results will not change, but understanding of processes will rise significantly, which may lead to new advances in physics.
- highd 10y agoThat would have to be worth the increased confusion in communication between experts using these different languages. Furthermore, given that the physics of the "pilot wave" are not significantly different from that of the wave function it seems unlikely that it will lead to any new intuition.
- nardi 10y agoThe same could have been said about heliocentrism.
- highd 10y agoHeliocentrism makes different predictions, it's a totally different comparison.
- nardi 10y agoI'm not a physicist, so my understanding of this is shaky. Can you explain to me how the ESSW paper could possibly have been seen to "disprove" PWT if it doesn't make any different predictions? Isn't the assertion that particles take deterministic paths a prediction?
- kobeya 10y agoI am a physicist, and you are not misunderstanding anything. ESSW defeated a strawman mis-generalization of PWT.